Comments

Honk4Love

Wow, just got caught up with all the comments. I am impressed by both sides, but we shall just see what happens in June. Until then, thank you for making this article so popular. My point for organizing the rally was to bring this case to light and it sure did bring a lot of people to comment. I will keep you updated of more events coming to the area. Love.

Bullhead

I've read your posts for awhile, all I can say is that which you accuse the "religionists" of doing, you also do (but don't seem to see it). In the end, you try to force others to live by the faith of your worldview just as you seem to hate from the Christians.

I'm reminded of Jesus' words in Matthew 7:

“For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

“Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces."

KalvaChomer

What about two elderly sisters who have the same situation of livinng together to make the most of their retiement resources ? Why should they be discriminated against when one dies and the other has to pay an inheritance tax on her estate ? We can allow for "sisters" to marry, huh ? But if we do, then why no all such marriages currrently unlawful ? Same with polygamy. Why would we discriinate aginst that ? Then we have to ask also if a marriage is necessary at all. What about two singles in any kind of relationship where one wants to have all the inheritance and benefits exceptions now given to traditional marriage. We can say, well, they just have to apply and be married. Now we run into "individual" conscience objection. Why should two people who want the benefits ave to go against their religious beliefs and form a marriag if they believe in only theie religions definition of marriage ?

KalvaChomer

It most certainly does. Once it is accepted that marriage has no definite form, then every other possible form would have available to it all the arguments made by the gay marriage decision if it is allowed.

Further, the DOMA challenge is based on "equal treatment". The woman who is the plaintiff in the case before the court is claiming the law unconstitutional because it discriminates between two types of marraige arrangement in that she had to pay inheritance tax on an estate left to her by her partner (wife, husband, ?), when a traditional married couple would not have had to pay. If there is no real definition of what a marriage is and what the government's interest is, and if we want to achieve "equal treatment" under the law, then why stop with piecemeal inclusion of groups ?

KalvaChomer

"You have now managed to narrow your definition of “republic” to only and exactly the American form, and still fail to grasp that democracy can have many forms and limitations."

How did my statement say that ? I pointed out that there IS more than one form of republic, and that you left out the distinction which is quite important for the issue at hand with gay marraige and striking down the will of the people of one member of the "federation" in our federal republic.

No where did I say that democracy means one form or is not limited in our system.

KalvaChomer

And the quality of that argument is no better. It is just as easily dismissed as you would dismiss the argument that the whole global warming scare campaign was cooked up by the U.N. to achieve global redistribution of wealth via a carbon tax system, which dishonest and greedy scientists went along with because there is no better way to raise research grants than to create a doomsday scenario to fill the coffers that keep them employed.

"If you think that separate restrooms and showers based on sexual orientation is sensible, then you are not a very sensible person and haven't given it much thought beyond just throwing it out there like so much mud."

Another evasion ! Why not offer some rationale as to why they are really different ?

KalvaChomer

HillTop - "If you think that ... then you are far too irrational and ignorant to have a discussion about such things."

This is what I would expect to hear on a grade school playground. "You are just too stupid" is a childish dodge when you really can't make a reasonable response.

"If you think that global warming is not real and is not continuing, then you have have ignored the science and have only been listening to people paid by the fossil fuel industry to spread lies and misinformation." . . . . >

HillTopWV

Second, why limit polygamy to bisexual relationships, since your religion and the uniquely American religion of Mormonism have previously allowed men to have many wives? If “the church” were to define marriage (as you advocate), the Mormons can have another new revelation making polygamy righteous again, and Christians and Jews can embrace the teachings of the Old Testament concerning wives as property and heir-making machines.

Third, I have no particular reason to object to or care about polygamous marriage and haven't given it a lot of thought. My first thought is that adjustments would be needed concerning distribution of spousal benefits, and polygamous divorces and child custody cases would be even messier. Muslim legal tradition probably would not be an example for us, since it is blatantly sexist.

HillTopWV

Unlike you, I do not have to try to pack observable reality into a box of my religion/worldview and make the former fit with the latter. I do it the other way around and discard the dogma which clearly doesn't fit.

Your religion is “arbitrary, selectively-enforced, and inconsistent,” yet you close your eyes tight and project all of that onto me, rather than dealing honestly with the facts. My worldview, if I have one, recognizes that life is messy. Yours demands that everything fit into some neatly ordered system of good and evil and brooks no dissent or room for honest questions. You are, it seems, fearful of both the questions and the answers.

By our constitution, religious opinions are given no greater weight for their source than any other. I am happy to let religious opinions compete openly and freely for what they are in public policy debates, and I am confident that hateful, nasty and arbitrary religious opinions will ultimately fail to pass muster.

HillTopWV

Why should the state, or anyone, give “the church” ownership of the term and meaning of “marriage?” What good would it do, other than give unwarranted public consent to this irrational and unjustified claim that marriage is somehow an exclusively religious institution? Are atheist marriages not really marriages? Are non-Christian marriages not really marriages (in the same way that it's unclear if non-Catholic marriages are really marriages in Catholic dogma)?

HillTopWV

If you think that a religious experience, like a vision of the Virgin Mary, is in any way analogous to the development of a scientific theory, like the theory of evolution, and wish to make that the basis of your argument, then you are far too irrational and ignorant to have a discussion about such things.

If you think that global warming is not real and is not continuing, then you have have ignored the science and have only been listening to people paid by the fossil fuel industry to spread lies and misinformation.

If you think that separate restrooms and showers based on sexual orientation is sensible, then you are not a very sensible person and haven't given it much thought beyond just throwing it out there like so much mud.

You have now managed to narrow your definition of “republic” to only and exactly the American form, and still fail to grasp that democracy can have many forms and limitations.

Bullhead

You say, "2. The bottom line is that Bullhead thinks that HIS religion should rule the American government, in spite of our constitution deliberately established a secular state which owes no fealty to any religion."

Perhaps, you missed the part right before where I said, " I think it would be best to reduce government to simply recognizing a civil union for all between any two adults and leave Marriage to the church."

So, BTW, what worldview/religion do you believe should rule public policy in America? Your's?

Honk4Love

Majoritatian, I am not saying that that is part of any agenda. That is the argument that has been ,ade against same sex marriage but a father and son is still same sex and if you cannot grasp the idea that you are just sounding irrational or senseless then you really need to start reading more carefully to see who is on which side.

KalvaChomer

HillTop - "We have a constitutional democratic republic. Rejoice and be glad!"

You seem to have left out an important distinction here. One can have a "republic" without any separation of powers to lower entities. We are a "federal republic", with a constitutional base and democratic traditions. That Constitution established us that way and it is being eroded by an overbearing central power. The occasion for the above story would seem to be the two cases before the U. S. Supreme Court. One involves overriding the will of the people in a referendum in accordance with their state constitution. That doesn't seem to honor the concept of democracy.

KalvaChomer

If we can't have separate facilities to accomodate every "exposure" of those who don't want to be viewed by someone who might be entertaining their carnal desire, then we should do away with all separation. Otherwise, we seem to be stuck with that awful sounding "separate but UNequal" treatment.

KalvaChomer

HillTop - "...genuine emotional love and affection felt by both straight and gay people tends to prove that they are equally valid (i.e., gay sexual attraction is no more a base carnal desire than straight attraction)."

If that is true, then why is it that we separate the biological sexes for restroom and shower facilities and such ? That would seem to be granting of special "voyeur" privledges to homosexuals. Shouldn't we have separate facilities for every "orientation" ? If heterosexuals are "aroused" by being mixed with the opposite sex in accomodations where they might we unclothed in full or part, wouldn't the same be true for homosexuals with others who might be the object of their "base carnal desire". It would seem to me that saying that they are not would undermine the notion you claim that they are the same. . . . . >

KalvaChomer

This is supposed to "answer" the flaw in evidence and the original theory while science accumulates more evidence, which may or may not ever come, but buys time for the existing and questionable theory.

It is the same with "global warming". When the warming stopped, after being predicted to increase steadily, its proponents just came up with a new name, "climate change", and additions to the theory to explain it all away. Worse yet, we know that these proponents "will tolerate no rivals", Uh deniers !

KalvaChomer

HillTop - "If religious experiences are to be considered valid, then virtually all religions are valid, which is impossible, since a great many religions ... will tolerate no rivals."

Wouldn't it be similarly true of scientific theory ? If we have two "theories" that are not proven, then we have only "belief" to support them, and so neither would be valid, as you seem to hold for religion. You won't accept any religiously based explanation or theory for what appears to be conflict in Christian Scripture - so why should anyone accept a scientific "theory" to explain inconsistencies in scientific evidence ? When slow evolution could not account for the Cambrian explosion, science just offered an explanation with a nifty name of "punctuated equalibrium". . . . . >

HillTopWV

- Biblical creation is myth. The evolutionary development of life over millions of years is well established, as is our DNA kinship with other primates. The Christian religion of blood atonement unravels without the fall of Adam and Eve into sin. The Bible has Jesus and Paul referencing the creation myth as real, so we know they were not speaking the truth either.

- The Biblical flood is myth. It left no geologic evidence, is physically impossible, and the notion that all human and animal life descended from a limited group at the same time is contradicted by DNA evidence.

- The Exodus is myth. That many people leaving Egypt and wandering in the desert for 40 years would have left some historical and/or archeological evidence. It didn't.

- The city of Tyre, prophesied to be destroyed and never rebuilt a long time ago, is still there.

HillTopWV

You worship the concept of consistency, so allow for no change or growth, and you delude yourself, imagining your religion to be consistent simply because it should be so (in order to meet your demand that good equals consistent), and you say it is so. Yet you have failed to demonstrate the supposed moral consistency of your religion in all these months on the forums when specific cases of inconsistency were pointed out.

You fail to grasp that your personal religious beliefs are irrelevant to formulation of public policy in this secular democratic republic. Any political argument that begins with, “Thus saith the Lord,” is dead on arrival. This protects not only atheists, but religious people from each other, and you should realize this.

HillTopWV

You continue to play games, defining democracy in such a limited way that it becomes a strawman for you to set fire to. You also continue to waffle between claiming that democracy is incompatible with a republic, and claiming that you have not said that they are mutually exclusive terms. We have a constitutional democratic republic. Rejoice and be glad!

I have no solution for the internal conflict you seem to be having other than therapy of some kind. There are probably people specializing in helping people recover from tea overdose by now, since the problem is fairly widespread.

HillTopWV

I do not deny that there is such a thing as “experience” of religious faith. People of every religion throughout the ages have had religious experiences. Religious experiences are highly individualistic, totally subjective, and have no bearing on the truth or reality of the religion being “experienced.” Even people of the same religion claim experiences or revelations which contradict each other. If religious experiences are to be considered valid, then virtually all religions are valid, which is impossible, since a great many religions (particularly the big three monotheistic ones) will tolerate no rivals.

In the end, an honest survey of “genuine” religious experience tends to prove that all religions are equally valid (and BS). By the same token, genuine emotional love and affection felt by both straight and gay people tends to prove that they are equally valid (i.e., gay sexual attraction is no more a base carnal desire than straight attraction).